Some Random Rants

(1.) I’m really tired of racism. It just seems a constant witch hunt; I don’t know what Megan Kelly actually said but constantly policing white people is leading to major pushback.

(2.) It’s really a civil war among white people themselves; as Razib notes white liberals lead very vanilla lives. I’m sad that Apu will be phased out, he was a problematic but key character.

(3.) I’m increasingly convinced that white liberals are priming “model minorities” to constantly whine and complain. The whole point about banter (in Britain at least) is the piss-taking aspect of it. WASPs do it all the time and admittedly it’s not part of the culture (it was something I didn’t understand when I first got here; Persianate traditions are particularly hyper-sensitive).

(4.) I have gotten into Twitter and am getting quite good at it. I get bored when no-one writes to me but then I get stressed when I see lots of notifications. I’ve always tried to avoid controversy (unsuccessfully) but then it’s only when one is controversial that one stirs chatter etc. It’s a meditation on what the NewsCycle is like.

(5.) I see the Tiber foaming with much blood if model minorities in the West (Hindus, Chinese) start getting on the SJW act. Political correctness is simply going mad and everyone realises that the point of immigration is simply to alter the political landscape. Personally I think it’s in very bad taste when immigrants try to transform the political landscape of their host society.

29 Replies to “Some Random Rants”

“bad taste when immigrants try to transform the political landscape of their host society.”

Good point. As one of the reasons for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, support for AlQueda/ISIS among the British Muslim youth was laid on the fact that the british muslim youth don’t have control over British foreign policy especially those concerning Muslim countries . That was stated explicitly in the suicide bombers who caused havoc on the train system in London or outright killers like Adabulajo who killed in broad daylight a soldier (https://youtu.be/SH7Ty8iPh5c)

“I think it’s in very bad taste when immigrants try to transform the political landscape of their host society.”

This must be a very British thing to rant, and it is not easy for someone in US to interpret. Immigrant population in the US is not some static blob; it changes itself and the host society via interactions, marriage and otherwise. It continuously changes the society. The political landscape will and should change. Second and third generation Hispanics often choose white or non-white identities. Tons of Indians contest elections. Why is that they should not choose SJW (too many examples ) or conservative ethos (e.g. Razib) and participate in a manner which alters the political landscape?

However, the opposite of what you say is true, at least in the US; as more immigrants have streamed in, the “white hinterland and suburbia” has grown more “red” and if anything, the congress and presidency has increasingly gone “red”. Starting in 1994, to the logical conclusion of today, the polity has gone “conservative” (not the conservative ideas of Reagan or even Bushes). This is the exact opposite of what you are talking about; immigration is changing the hosts! but the immigrants are but bit players.

I believe the worst line in the above rant is about model minorities going SJW! they have every right becoming SJW or conservative or moderate; this way, they are becoming willing participants in the political landscape.

If you are talking with an European perspective, I apologize, as I honestly never travel to Europe; my entire life revolves around Washington-Silicon Valley-chennai axis, and I do not understand what goes on in Europe; but it may be that you do not understand immigrant minorities in the US either. The interactions between liberals and minorities (model or otherwise) is minimal; those who traverse those worlds are a few.

1. Immigration to US is a long process; often taking several years to get GC; 5 more years waiting and 2 more years after being citizenship-eligible at least to get citizenship and voting. The process can exceed 14 years, and sometimes 16-20 for those who came to study.

2. Thus, the increase in immigration voters (call this Delta_ I) is slow; even then several immigrants such as cuban, filipino, whitish latino vote republican (Delta_R) due to evangelical, catholic and political ties.

3. However the corresponding “reddening” (Delta_W) of the white, rural and suburban voters is much faster; I had interpreted the 1994 republican revolt as anti-black (Clinton was the first Black president); but now, it is abundantly clear it is white, and follows every non-white person of some consequence. If Kamala wins something in 2024, you can bet 75% of the white vote in 2028 will be republican.

In contrast to your assumption of immigrants altering the landscape, it is the nonwhite nature of polity that alter the landscape.
Delta_W >> Delta_I – Delta_r

This can be abundantly seen when some Latinos who look white get abundant white votes, like Cruz and Rubio, as long as they espouse christian and republican values. Contrary to the Nikki Haley love of these pages, it can be argued that the color, religion and last name favor Nikki more than, say, Jindal.

I do not attach a value judgement to any of this, we Tamils are the biggest proponents of colorism, racism and sexism anyway.

Vijay, Democrats do much better among college educated caucasians. However, the non college educated and poor caucasians increasingly despise high profile Democrats at the national level.

Reasonable Democrats still routinely win a majority of the caucasian vote. Reasonable Republicans still routinely win a majority of the Asian/Latino combined vote too.

Many poor and less educated caucasians (there are a lot of them) support Trump. Do you think they will support Republicans after Trump retires? Trump has significant support among less educated blacks and less educated Latinos too. If an election were held today I think Trump would win a quarter or more of the African American vote. Including a majority of African American males without college degrees. Trump would do poorly among African American females and African American males with college degrees.

I am a bit reluctant to wade in this argument as it has been litigated better in a 1000 other fora by a 1000 other people. But I will try…

A coalition to win does not need to carry 50% of the votes; as long as the coalition is spread geographically wide enough to win the electoral college and the senate, and it is fused by unimportant issues, that is sufficient. This means in the US, 40-45% of the votes that is spread in rural america and in selected suburbs. A strategy to obtain this majority is to unite the non-college white voters with just enough single-issue voters such as evangelicals, gun rights and selected others such as mormons to form a coalition that votes against its own interests, but is maintained together by dog whistles. 72%of the voters are white; 62% of the whites are non-college, and that is 45% of the voting population. Their issues are with college-educated and unite under the flag of patriotism, christianity, fake anti-immigrationism and anti-black dogwhistles. This coalition can be held together and has been held together since 1968 where it started as the southern strategy and progressed towards the tea part strategy and the present. The opposing coalition is harder to keep together, and tends to be urban, coastal and has its difficulties staying together. As more immigrants appear in the polity, and more blacks and women appear, the rate of cohesion of the “southern coalition” is higher; 538 calculated it is at a rate of 2X. I forgot what are the definitions of dx/dy of this.

The advantage of this coalition is it does not vote on its interests, but votes for issues of culture, flag, guns, gays and others that do not affect the group outcomes; on issues that affect its group interests such as rural desolation, free trade, tariffs, tax cuts, pre-existing medical conditions, voting the opposite of its interests suggests a lack of interest in maintaining the group interests. A good example is the solid support for tariffs which wiped out the soybean market, but farmers tend to support tariffs. Another issue is broad support against ACA among the coalition even if medicaid or forms of national insurance that would support rural medicare. A third example is tax cuts which do not even impact those that pay very little taxes; or issues such as controlling painkiller supply.

The opposing coalition is too broad and do not have single issues that keep them together; tax cuts will help sections of this coalition and they tend to support them. They vote their interests in issues and tend to cleave by interest. This is not suitable for winning, as a winning coalition is the one that is a minority but always votes together independent of its interest.

An excellent comparison is a party in India that will litigate Ayodhya temple eternally and perceived slights by minorities; it cannot get 275 seats but can always win 200+ seats.

Vijay, interesting. There is a big difference between national level and state by state . . . where words such as republican, democrat, right and left mean little.

You are including Latino caucasians in your numbers which is fine. I would love to see a breakdown of the Latino vote along caucasian (majority) and non caucasian (minority) lines. But as far as I know no such data is collected.

Non latino caucasians are about 60% of the population, 5/8 of the electorate.

Most of the dog whistles are against the educated elites and they play very well.

There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigration as an issue is not usually discussed and out of the radar.

It is fascinating that the biggest winners of the tax cuts are self described democrats, liberals and leftists (since they tend to be better educated and more affluent).

On the question of black Americans there is an evolution on the part of the those who oppose illegal immigration, less skilled legal immigration; and on the part of less educated voters. They see blacks as their natural allies against the “globalists”, “neocons”, and the educated.

Traditionally Cezar Chavez, African Americans and unions opposed less skilled immigration because they believed that they drove down wages for the less skilled. This is why the Democratic party for generations opposed less skilled immigration. Republicans who supported business and didn’t like unions favored more less skilled immigration. Very recently this has changed.

The less educated and poor are voting more Republican. And the Republican policy on these issues in changing. Becoming more populist, more anti globalist, less pro business. Today’s homeless are Trump’s base. Homeless tend to be caucasian males with some black males. Few are females, hispanics or Asian.

Democrats are the party of free trade, free investment and business. I still can’t believe this has happened. But the polling shows it has. Free trade, free investment and globalism is great for the educated, the healthy, the intelligent and those with mental health. But by associating Democrats with uppity patronizing, condescending college educated voters . . . are Democrats dooming their party?

If the Republicans nominate someone such as Rubio in 2020, a majority of the Asian and Latino vote will probably go Republican.

The Asian, Latino and immigrant vote in America is a “swing” vote.

“I had interpreted the 1994 republican revolt as anti-black (Clinton was the first Black president); but now, it is abundantly clear it is white”
???
1994 was a different time. A significant majority of Asians voted Republican in 1994. Close to half of Latino Americans voted Republican in 1994. They didn’t vote Republican because they were anti black. The 1994 Republican win wasn’t anti black.

VijayVan “As one of the reasons for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, support for AlQueda/ISIS among the British Muslim youth was laid on the fact that the british muslim youth don’t have control over British foreign policy especially those concerning Muslim countries . That was stated explicitly in the suicide bombers who caused havoc on the train system in London or outright killers like Adabulajo who killed in broad daylight a soldier”
Don’t understand. Why are English muslims so different and radical compared to muslims who live in the rest of the world. One of the reasons for anti English sentiment in Iraq since 2003 was (is) the perception that England was sending thousands of English muslims to mass murder Iraqis, attack the Iraqi government and attack the Iraqi Army. Why did so many English muslims [minus English Shiites and Kurds] hate the Iraqi Army so much? By contrast among Iraqis the Iraqi Army was by far the most popular, respected and legitimate institution in Iraq. The conspiracy theory that England was backing the “Iraqi resistance” and Al Qaeda against the Iraqi state and Iraqi Army was widely believed. It remains widely believed, despite English attempts to resist this narrative. One of the reasons is that between 2003 and the present over 10 thousand english nationals have gone to Iraq and fought with the Iraqi Security Forces, Iraqi Government and anti Al Qaeda/Daesh Iraqi militias.

In Robert Gates’ book Duty (2014) he mentions how President Karzai asked him why the English were backing the Taliban against Afghanistan. This question wasn’t rhetorical. President Karzai was genuinely curious. Part of the reason Afghans were so convinced is because so many English nationals have joined the Taliban and Daesh and fought against Afghans. There have been many examples of English nationals with English accents meeting with senior Afghan officers or government officials and blowing themselves up. A particularly egregious example was when an English national suicide bomber went to a meeting inside the Afghan Ministry of Defense and met several top generals and MoD officials. He blew himself up, killing several ANA generals.

Many incidents of this type have led to deep anti English anger on the part of Afghans.

Why to English muslims support Pakistan so much? Why do they back Pakistan against Afghanistan so much? Why do Sunni English people hate the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Government so much? [English Shiites have backed the Iraqi government and Iraqi Army since 2003.]

England has a deep cultural problem and urgently requires introspection. English nonmuslims need to be held accountable for sending tens of thousands of their English nationals around the world to create mischief and Jihad.

Polls of English muslims are significantly more radical than polls of muslims who live in the Arab world or rest of the world. English nonmuslims are in large part responsible for this.

The US was conceived as a nation of immigrants and within one or two generations supposed to be melted out of their old identities and into all American one. The European immigration especially UK is not like that. The French model is more like that of the US. UK does not assimilate or integrate immigrants at all.

“I’m really tired of racism. It just seems a constant witch hunt; I don’t know what Megan Kelly actually said but constantly policing white people is leading to major pushback.”
True. Pushback from Asians, Latinos and Black Americans too.

“It’s really a civil war among white people themselves” true
“as Razib notes white liberals lead very vanilla lives.” true
“I’m sad that Apu will be phased out, he was a problematic but key character.”
Why does anyone care about Apu? I never did.

” I’m increasingly convinced that white liberals are priming “model minorities” to constantly whine and complain.”
Are you speaking of the UK? Who are England’s “model minorities”?

“The whole point about banter (in Britain at least) is the piss-taking aspect of it.”
Culturally English. Have noticed this.
“WASPs do it all the time and admittedly it’s not part of the culture”
I didn’t know what WASP meant until I just looked it up. Please share more about English culture.

“(it was something I didn’t understand when I first got here; Persianate traditions are particularly hyper-sensitive).” Really? Was this true pre Khomeini, peace be upon him?

“I see the Tiber foaming with much blood if model minorities in the West (Hindus, Chinese) start getting on the SJW act.”
What is Tiber? I think most Hindus and Chinese are afraid of SJWs and being called on their “privilege”. However, a few Hindus and Chinese SJWs are promoted by the caucasian intelligentsia. I see them as extensions of the caucasian intelligentsia. Most Hindus and Chinese are terrified of being called racist or being accused of oppressing the poor.

In the US, Asians commit crime, are incarcerated and subject to police violence at a fraction the caucasian rate. Asians commit about 1 1/2% of all murders. 9% of all murder victims are Asians. Asians commit few crimes. But many crimes are committed against Asians.

“Political correctness is simply going mad” true”

“and everyone realises that the point of immigration is simply to alter the political landscape.” We don’t agree. The point of immigration is increase economic growth/prosperity and enrich culture in countries importing immigrants. Another reason is to protect refugees fleeing Islamists and organized crime.

“Personally I think it’s in very bad taste when immigrants try to transform the political landscape of their host society.” Why? Traditionally in the United States, Republicans favored skilled immigration for this reason. The US left until very recently opposed skilled immigration for this reason. Now for some odd reason both Republicans and Democrats support skilled immigration. Trump is an outlier.

As recently as 2004 President Bush won 44% of the Latino vote.

Democrats favor less skilled immigrants. Let us see how much less skilled immigrants vote for Democrats over time. Less educated voters tend to support Trump.

I’d say it’s bad behavior (and grounds for limiting future immigration) when immigrants try to shift the political debate outside of existing bounds, but you can’t expect them to not participate equally in local politics once they arrive.

I don’t understand what you mean Fraxinicus. What does it mean to shift the political debate outside of existing bounds?

Many Iraqi Americans who lobbied for US training, equipment and funding for the Iraqi Security Forces were viciously slandered by Americans who considered themselves “pro peace”. Similar slander is directed at Afghan Americans who lobby for US training, equipment and funding for the Afghan Security Forces. And against Libyan Americans who want America to help the Libyan security forces. And against Nigerian Americans who want America to help Nigeria. And against Cuban Americans who lobby to influence US foreign policy. Jewish Americans are often called traitors for similar reasons.

This type of bigotry and racism is unacceptable and needs to stop.

Some Americans are jealous of the success of immigrants and children of immigrants. This is wrong and needs to stop.

It is also wrong to be upset when affluent immigrants donate large sums of money to influence American politics.

For example, if a conservative Muslim from Pakistan moves to America and starts arguing in favor of blasphemy laws, I think he’s more of a dick than if he just argued in favor of blasphemy laws in Pakistan. And if there were a lot of conservative Muslims from Pakistan moving to America and arguing in favor of blasphemy laws, I would want to limit immigration from Pakistan.

However, blind approval of anything Israel does is already a mainstream position in the United States, and so this wouldn’t apply to an Israeli immigrant who moves here and then argues for blind approval of anything Israel does. I’d still think said Israeli is a dick, but not any more so than the tens of millions of Americans who already think the same way.

EDIT: Also, I didn’t intend for my original comment to be a response to your comment. It was meant to be a general response to Zach’s post.

“EDIT: Also, I didn’t intend for my original comment to be a response to your comment. It was meant to be a general response to Zach’s post.”
Understood and thought as much.

“However, blind approval of anything Israel does is already a mainstream position in the United States, and so this wouldn’t apply to an Israeli immigrant who moves here and then argues for blind approval of anything Israel does. I’d still think said Israeli is a dick, but not any more so than the tens of millions of Americans who already think the same way.”

Most Americans, including policy makers and politicians know almost nothing about Palestine Israel. It would be good if Americans learned something and understood something. This is far more important than their nominal “opinions”. Two of my favorite sayings are:
—“first understanding then adjustment”
—“with understanding adjustment is automatic”

I have no issue with pro Palestinian immigrants or pro Israeli immigrants. [Most pro Isreali immigrants are not Jewish.] I am very pro Palestinian and very pro Israeli. I believe that both peoples share common values and common long term interests.

One reason I often give for why the US should allow in more muslim immigrants (which I strongly favor) is because muslim immigrants understand Jihadis and Islamists and are more committed to solving these challenges than nonmuslim Americans.

Should the US government be able to impose an ideological test for immigrants and sort out immigrants with Islamist and Jihadi views? I am torn by this issue. What are your thoughts?

An immigrant who thought from a “secular” perspective that the Iraqi government and Iraqi army are fascist and corrupt and didn’t like them should be allowed in. But someone with strong views on blasphemy and restricting free speech would be deeply troubling. Someone who wants the world to help Palestinians should be let in. But someone who cheers Hamas throwing LBGTQ off building tops would scare me [sadly many–not a majority thank God–Arab musims and Pakistani muslims and English muslims support Shariah capital punishment for LBGTQ].

Caucasian muslim converts are often far more Jihadi and Islamist than muslims from cultured families. The former are far more scary. I am more worried about English muslim immigrants than Egyptian, Iraqi, Afghan, Libyan, Turkish, Lebanese, Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Indian, Bangladeshi, Malaysian, Indonesian, Iranian, Azerbaijani, Albanian, Kosovo, Bosnian, muslim immigrants.

All Stan immigrants should automatically be put at the front of the line. The more Jaggujis the better.

Immigration to the US is restrictive enough that I don’t think we need national filtering. Any utility gained in reducing the very small % of salafis would be countered by the damage to our international image, assuming it can get any worse.

If I was European, I’d be much more concerned. But I don’t think you need targeted filtering, so long as you enforce relatively limited and diverse immigration, and have a proper assimilationist attitude and policy. Sadly, it looks like Europe hasn’t and isn’t following these criteria. UK is too multiculturalist; many countries, but especially France, took in too many immigrants from a single country or region; and Denmark is unnecessarily alienating Muslim immigrants with heavy-handed tactics.

I thought of writing an article in an attempt to persuade the Trump administration to take more refugees from muslim majority countries and more skilled muslim immigrants. My plan would have involved interviewing potential immigrants to sort out Islamists.

I ran it by some liberals I really like. The liberals I really like who are in policy circles felt that this wouldn’t be practical and would be resisted by many. The practical aspects of interviewing all potential immigrants are very challenging. There are legal challenges. The other problem is that Trump’s administration is more favorable to ideas such as mine than the POTUS. I don’t know how to persuade the POTUS. Sigh.

We live in crazy town.

Is it worth writing something like this and emailing it to a bunch of think thanks, politicians and policy makers and seeing what became of it? Or is it hopeless.

“would be countered by the damage to our international image, assuming it can get any worse.”

All countries have challenges with their international image. Why is the US special in this regard? The US is becoming a normal regular country with the challenges of a normal regular country.

It is more valuable to be respected than popular. It is is far more important to do what is right than be respected. Americans are far too focused on popularity. People who focus on being popular become fake and inauthentic and in the long run are less popular.

As more immigrants vote, and the percentage of immigrant-democrat vote increases, white republican vote increases by a ratio of 150%, as was shown by 538 or one of the other data guys. This was what I wrote about earlier, the dy/dx was like 1.5. In addition, the “value” of a rural or suburban white vote is higher in yield, as evidenced by senate or house seat or electoral college is higher. A secondary effect is the republican electorate becomes even more “culturally” right wing and pushes or portrays middle positions to left wing.

At least 10 congressmen can be classified as WN in the European sense. This is not new, in the 50s, several senators were secretly white nationalist. That is a fertile position with lots of rural vote.

If the Republicans select someone such as Ben Shapiro as their nominee in 2024 I think a majority of Latinos and Asians will vote republican in the general, and more importantly they would bother to vote. Do you think a candidate like Ben Shapiro (doesn’t have to be him) can win the Republican nomination? Unclear.

How many of these Trump supporting “rural or suburban white vote” democrats will vote Republican post Trump? Not sure these voters would vote for someone like Ben Shapiro in the general.

Trump won about 4/5 of caucasian males without college degrees. Hard as it is to believe now, until recently over 40% of this vote went Democrat. Until recently a large majority of college educated voters voted Republican. Republicans had a lock on the upper middle class. Seems like many life times ago now.

WN I think means white nationalism. I don’t think that is an acceptable position. A lot of globalists and a lot of the business community are still in the Republican party. And for them caucasian ethno-nationalism is kryptonite. A lot of Republicans (not just Shapiro) hate them.

My anecdotal observation is that many less educated and poor people are politically incorrect and can are easily be accused of racism by leftists. One of the reasons they are poor to begin with is because they are politically incorrect and therefore discriminated against by business and society. They represent the vast majority of “white nationalism” Americans. They are mocked, ridiculed and disrespected by the vast majority of college educated Americans (let us be honest . . . almost all Brown Pundit readers are college educated or college bound for very young readers) . . . partly because they are “racist” and partly because of class, culture, sophistication and perceived low intelligence.

I don’t see any intellectual leaders who can lead them. The closest thing they have is Jared Taylor . . . but he is extremely politically marginal at best.

The attack against poor people, lower middle class and the less educated . . . calling them “racist”, “bigoted”, “stupid” and the like makes me uncomfortable. Especially when the attackers are upper middle class or rich (whether Asians, Latinos, Blacks or caucasians.)

Isn’t it better to love and respect them with all our hearts and all our souls and melt their hearts with the sweetness of love? Isn’t it better to try to facilitate them empowering themselves; try to surge their capacity? If darkies lead this effort . . . we might be the only ones who have ever tried to help them. We won’t be their best friend, but their only friend. They will remember our loving kindness. Everyone deserves a second chance. Everyone deserves redemption. Everyone deserves a chance to transform themselves into a better person. Perhaps we should try to help them improve their own physical health, mental health and intelligence.